In an effort to make this thread sticky-worthy, I am going to update this OP to keep casual glancers informed.

This post is the official one-stop shopping of the key points/developments of the fiscal cliff negotiations.

Far as I understand, the fiscal cliff:

1. Gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. Gets rid of the Bush tax cuts for everybody else.
3. Slashes defense spending by something like $500 billion.
4. Slashes domestic programs like the NIH, Head Start, and medicine/drug care for the poor by $500 billion.

The new idea is for Democrats to allow the cliff to hit, then immediately introduce a bill that would bring 2, 4, and some of 3 back. But not 1.

Here is a chart detailing exactly what the fiscal cliff is going to do, financially:

Spoiler!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

New CBO projection: if the fiscal cliff hits, we are in another recession, and lose two million jobs.

Overall, if the tax breaks from the 2009 stimulus are allowed to expire—the EITC and Child Tax Credit expansions, along with American Opportunity Credit for college tuition—the poorest 20 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by $209 on average, reducing their after-tax income by 1.9 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center.

As would the middle class:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, more than half of all married couples will owe an additional tax of around $4,000 unless Congress acts. And more than a third of families with children will fall subject to the AMT, with parents of three or more children facing an extra tax of $4,700.

Among married couples with at least two children and adjusted gross income between $75,000 and $100,000, the center estimates that 84 percent will face a significantly higher tax bill this year because of the AMT.

There seems to be some consensus between the parties that substantial revenues want to be raised. Boehner and the GOP hopes that's through limiting tax deductions rather than tax raises.

Limit itemized deductions to 28 percent, close some loopholes and deductions on high earners, eliminate tax breaks for oil and gas companies, eliminate the carried interest loophole, plus a few other items. $584 billion

At least 50% to do with why the deficit has exploded prior to him taking office.

This is why.

data.

The conclusion you're drawing from the data, however, is completely unsupported by any credible expert you can cite.

You won't find a single serious commentator claim Obama has doubled the deficit. But I'd love to watch you try.

Does the fact that the 2009 budget which normally would have been signed/passed in 2008 wasn’t passed and signed until Obama was president and that Bush had threatened to Veto it, if it exceeded his budget request have any bearing on the discussion? I think so.

Also The Bush Tax cuts really were not a secret. Congress was aware of them because, they passed them and then extended them. Blaming the deficit on this tax cut is really no different than projecting what revenue we could have had under the Eisenhower rates or if the Chinese had just decided give us $500 billion a year for the last 10 years because we are nice people. The chart can look any way you want it to to look when you put in things that were not there.

Does the fact that the 2009 budget which normally would have been signed/passed in 2008 wasn’t passed and signed until Obama was president and that Bush had threatened to Veto it, if it exceeded his budget request have any bearing on the discussion? I think so.

Also The Bush Tax cuts really were not a secret. Congress was aware of them because, they passed them and then extended them. Blaming the deficit on this tax cut is really no different than projecting what revenue we could have had under the Eisenhower rates or if the Chinese had just decided give us $500 billion a year for the last 10 years because we are nice people. The chart can look any way you want it to to look when you put in things that were not there.

Obama saved us $2 trillion by not proposing construction of a bridge to his home state of Hawaii!

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Obama saved us $2 trillion by not proposing construction of a bridge to his home state of Hawaii!

LOL

Can you imagine how much one to Kenya would have cost or if Bush would have dug that moat across our southern border and then fed the Alligators just enough to keep them alive and hungry? Alligators live a long time.

Can you imagine how much one to Kenya would have cost or if Bush would have dug that moat across our southern border and then fed the Alligators just enough to keep them alive and hungry? Alligators live a long time.

Does the fact that the 2009 budget which normally would have been signed/passed in 2008 wasn’t passed and signed until Obama was president and that Bush had threatened to Veto it, if it exceeded his budget request have any bearing on the discussion? I think so.

When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.

This framework for calculating presidential spending should be applied generally to all presidential terms of office. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to attribute most 2001 federal spending to Bush, just as it would be wrong to attribute most 1993 spending to Clinton. Presidents can and do add to the budgets passed by their predecessors by signing supplemental appropriations bills early in their terms, but this can only account for a small portion of total spending that might occur during a president’s first year in office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FishingRod

The Bush Tax cuts really were not a secret. Congress was aware of them because, they passed them and then extended them.

Except that deficits are not the result of "secret" things, they are the result of inadequate funding for government operations. Which means you can pare down government operations and/or bring in more revenue.

The deficit has become the way it's become because of expansive government spending (thanks to two wars on the credit card and exploding healthcare costs) with dwindling revenue (thanks to our non-surprise Bush tax cuts). Both will have to be addressed for the deficit to be righted.

How GOP can turn the tables on Obama on spending
Byron York
December 3, 2012, 8:00 pm

Republicans will cave on the question of raising the tax rate for the highest-income Americans. The only question is whether they do so before or after the government goes over the so-called fiscal cliff.

First, many in the GOP do not believe that raising the rate on top earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (the rate before the Bush tax cuts) would seriously damage the economy. Second, they know that most Americans approve of higher taxes on the top bracket, and President Obama, having campaigned and won on that platform, seems dead-set on higher rates. Third, they fear that if the government does go over the cliff and Democrats propose re-lowering taxes for everyone except the highest earners, Republicans would be in the impossible position of resisting tax cuts for 98 percent of the country on behalf of the top 2 percent.

Of course, raising taxes on the top bracket will not produce anywhere near enough money to avert a debt crisis down the road. Nor will cuts strictly in discretionary spending, although some should be made. The most important thing is reining in entitlement spending. So a deal would be: Republicans agree to raise the top tax rate while Democrats agree to cut entitlements.

"You need about $4 trillion over the next decade to stabilize the debt," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "I would happily go from 35 percent to 39.6 percent in exchange for a trillion each out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That has to be the nature of the deal. Republicans give on taxes, and Democrats have to give on entitlements."

The GOP moved an inch in that direction Monday. In a letter to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner and the House Republican leadership proposed $800 billion in new tax revenues, along with about $1.4 trillion in combined cuts to entitlements and discretionary spending. But the GOP still resisted any increase in tax rates, which they "continue to oppose and will not agree to."

Instead, Republicans insist the new tax revenue will have to come from eliminating deductions and broadening the tax base, which is far more complicated -- and therefore difficult to sell to the public -- than Obama's relatively simple plan to raise taxes at the top.

A Republican offer to allow a top rate increase in exchange for entitlement cuts would turn the spotlight on the Democrats' entitlement dilemma. If President Obama takes the position of many in his party -- AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka, for example, has written, "NO to cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and YES to fair taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent"-- there will be no deal. But that would not stop the Republicans from saying right now: While we do not support raising taxes on anyone, especially in this weak economy, we will accept the president's top-bracket rate increase in exchange for trillion-dollar cuts in the big three entitlement programs.

Doing that would forestall the Democratic attack that the GOP will not bend on tax rates. Instead, it would be the president who's not bending. Of course, Obama -- and many in the media -- would find other grounds to attack Republicans. But since the GOP is ultimately going to relent on the top tax rate, why not do it when it has some benefit?

During the campaign, Obama made brief and vague references to cutting spending. "I've signed a trillion dollars' worth of spending cuts," he said at a Nov. 1 rally in Green Bay, Wis. "I intend to do more." (The $1 trillion was a reference to the sequestration cuts agreed to by both parties that Obama has now said won't happen.)

Obama has never specified what "do more" means. In a question-and-answer session Monday on Twitter, the president was asked, "Why not place more emphasis on reducing government spending than on raising revenues?"

"Already cut $1T+ in gov spending last yr. Discretionary spending lowest as % of GDP since ike," Obama answered. Then the president added: "Open to more smart cuts but not in areas like R&D, edu that help growth & jobs, or hurt vulnerable (eg disabled)." Don't look for the president to specify those "smart cuts" anytime soon.

There's no doubt Republicans will take a hit from their supporters if they stop opposing a rate increase on the highest earners. But they are in a weak position and will lose eventually. Changing their stance sooner rather than later would highlight Obama's intransigence on entitlements and spending. The government might still go over the fiscal cliff, but not because Republicans didn't try to save it.

Except that deficits are not the result of "secret" things, they are the result of inadequate funding for government operations. Which means you can pare down government operations and/or bring in more revenue.

The deficit has become the way it's become because of expansive government spending (thanks to two wars on the credit card and exploding healthcare costs) with dwindling revenue (thanks to our non-surprise Bush tax cuts). Both will have to be addressed for the deficit to be righted.

You left out a big drag on revenues: the Obama economy.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

Except that deficits are not the result of "secret" things, they are the result of inadequate funding for government operations. Which means you can pare down government operations and/or bring in more revenue.